ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
How does head position affect laryngeal vision with a video laryngeal mask airway?
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Laryngeal Mask Airway Vision Mask (LMA VM) is a supraglottic airway device (SAD) with a vision guidance system. The ideal head and neck position for direct laryngoscopy is known, but the ideal position for placing a LMA is not. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the optimal position for placement of a video laryngeal mask airway. Methods: This prospective, observational, transversal, and analytical study was performed in 72 consecutive patients. In the same patient, laryngeal vision was first assessed with the head and neck in the sniffing position and then with the head in the neutral position. Procedures were performed by the same investigator. The assessment of the laryngeal view was performed using two classifications: Cormack-Lehane classification and Brimacombe classification. The placement of the device was considered adequate when the Cormack-Lehane rating was between 1 and 2 and the Brimacombe rating between 2 and 4. Results: In this study, 72 patients participated. In the assessment of the glottis using the Cormack-Lehane classification for fibre-optic view, laryngeal visibility was adequate in 64 (88.89%) patients in the neutral position and in 65 (90, 28%) patients in the sniffing position ( Conclusion: An adequate sniffing position did not result in a better glottic view than the neutral position. Additional manoeuvres were equal in both positions. The head-neck position does not influence on the placement of a third-generation SAD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.